[Reprinted  from  the  Pitblications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association 
of  America,  Vol.  XVI,  No.  1.] 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND.  - 

The  Heliand  is  generally  called  an  Old  Saxon  epic.  Its 
language,  however,  is  not  a  pure  Saxon  dialect  but  presents  a 
peculiar  mixture  of  Saxon  with  Frisian  and  Low  Franconian 
forms,  for  which  as  yet  no  sufficient  explanation  has  been 
offered. 

At  a  time  when  only  two  manuscripts  of  the  Heliand  were 
known — the  Cotton  ms.  in  the  British  Museum  and  the 
Munich  ms.  in  the  Royal  Bavarian  Library — the  mixed 
dialect  seemed  to  present  less  difficulty  than  at  present.  No 
special  importance  was  attributed  at  this  time  to  the  traces 
of  Frisian  dialect  in  the  poem.  Most  of  them,  in  fact,  were 
reckoned  among  the  Early  Saxon  forms.  The  question 
therefore  seemed  to  lie  only  between  Saxon  and  Low  Franco¬ 
nian  ;  and  it  is  easily  noticed  that  the  traces  of  Low 
Franconian  appear  to  a  much  larger  extent  in  the  Cotton 
than  in  the  Munich  ms.  Heyne1  accordingly  advanced  the 
theory  that  the  Heliand  was  written  in  Munster  in  West¬ 
phalia,  and  that  the  Munich  ms.  preserved  on  the  whole  the 
dialect  of  the  original,  while  the  Cotton  ms.  represented  a 
transcription  of  the  original  into  Low  Franconian.  He 
assigned  the  latter  to  the  monastery  Werden  on  the  Ruhr, 
near  the  Franconian  boundary. 

Meanwhile  the  well  known  finds,  made  in  1880  in  the 
library  of  the  University  of  Prague2  and  in  1894  in 
the  library  of  the  Vatican  in  Rome,3  have  furnished  us 
with  fragments  of  two  additional  manuscripts.  By  these 

1Zs.  f  dt.  Phil.,  i  (1869),  p.  288;  cf.  his  Kleine  alts.  u.  altndfr.  Gramm. 
(Paderb.,  1873),  p.  2. 

*  Lambel,  Pin  neuentdecktes  Blatt  einer  Heliandhandschr.,  Wien,  1881  (repr. 
from  Silzungsber .  d.  kais.  Akad.  d.  TL'ss.,  1880). 

3  Zangemeister  u.  Braune,  Bruchstiicke  d.  alls.  Bibeldichtung,  Heidelberg, 
1894  (reprinted  from  Neue  Heidelberg.  Jahrbiicher ,  Vol.  iv). 


123 


124 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


new  discoveries  Heyne’s  opinion  is  definitely  set  aside.  For 
both  new  fragments  show  a  dialectic  variety  like  that  of  the 
Cottonianus.  This  is  the  more  important  since  both  repre¬ 
sent  an  early  stage  in  the  tradition  of  the  text,  and  are  in 
their  readings  independent  of  each  other  and  of  the  Cotton 
MS.  The  condition  of  our  mss.  then  indicates  that  the  charac¬ 
teristic  mixture  of  Saxon,  Low  Franconian,  and  Frisian 
forms  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  the  Cotton  ms.,  but  belongs  to 
the  original  Heliand. 

While  this  view  may  at  present  be  regarded  as  generally 
agreed  upon,1  there  is  still  much  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
the  locality  in  which  a  mixture  of  these  three  dialects  could 
have  taken  place.  Several  scholars,  Koegel2  and  Braune3  for 
example,  are  satisfied  with  a  slight  modification  of  Heyne’s 
theory.  The  poem  in  their  opinion  was  written  inWerden, 
the  same  monastery  which  Heyne  regarded  as  the  home 
of  the  Cottonianus.  Kauffmann 4  would  prefer  to  substitute 
for  Werden  the  monastery  of  Corvey  on  the  Weser.  This 
would  carry  us  near  the  southern  part  of  the  Saxon  territory. 
Jostes5 — in  a  paper  which  has  much  stimulated  and  certainly 
in  some  respects  benefited  the  discussion  of  our  problem — 
finds  that  for  creating  an  epic  like  the  Heliand  conditions 
were  nowhere  more  favorable  than  in  the  northern  provinces 
of  the  empire,  say  near  Hamburg  or  in  Holstein.  As 
regards  our  manuscripts,  he  suggests  that  the  Cottonianus 
may  have  been  written  in  Magdeburg,  the  Monacensis  in 

1  Cf.,  e.  g.,  Koegel,  Gesch.  d.  dl.  Lit.,  i,  1,  p.  281 ;  Braune,  Bruchst.  d.  alts. 
Bibeldicht.,  p.  212. 

2 1.  c.,  p.  283  seq.,  and  Erg.  heft,  p.  21  seq. 

H.  c.,  p.  220. 

4  Germania  37  (1892),  p.  368  seq.,  in  a  review  of  Gallde’s  Alts.  Gramm., 
written  before  the  Vatican  fragments  were  discovered.  In  P.-B.  Beitr.  12 
(1886),  p.  358,  Kauffmann  advanced  the  opinion  that  the  Cottonianus  was 
written  in  Eastern  Westphalia,  and  that  Paderborn  might  have  been  the 
home  of  the  poet. 

5  Zeitschr.  f.  dt.  Alt.  40  (1896),  p.  160-184.  Cf.  H.  Tiimpel,  Niederdt. 
Studien  (Bielefeld,  189b),  p.  130—133. 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


125 


Hildesheira.  Finally  Wrede,  in  an  able  treatise  published 
only  about  a  year  ago,1  has  attempted  to  prove  that  the  poet 
lived  in  the  southeastern  corner  of  the  Saxon  territory,  in 
the  vicinity  of  Merseburg.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  there  existed  near  Merseburg  in  the  Old  Saxon  period  a 
Frisian  colony,  since  unmistakable  traces  of  Frisian  dialect 
appear  (in  Low  German  glosses  and  in  proper  names)  in 
this  vicinity  as  late  as  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  eleventh 
century.2  This  in  Wrede’s  opinion  would  account  for  the 
Frisian  elements  in  the  Heliand.  As  regards  the  supposed 
Low  Franconian  forms,  Wrede  holds  that  these  are  not  Low 
Franconian  but  belong  to  Eastern  or  Southeastern  Low 
German. 

We  see  then  that  in  this  question  the  East  and  the  West, 
the  North  and  the  South  have  each  found  its  advocates,  and 
it  is  for  us  to  take  our  choice ;  unless  we  decide  to  reject 
every  one  of  these  theories  in  order  to  start  in  a  new  direc¬ 
tion,  a  direction  not  indicated  by  any  one  of  the  four  points 
of  the  compass. 

The  fact  that  one  theory  has  closely  followed  another, 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  proper  solution  of  the  problem 
has  not  yet  been  found.  Under  these  circumstances  I  may 
refrain,  I  think,  from  discussing  in  detail  the  different  propo¬ 
sitions  and  from  repeating  the  objections  which  each  advocate 
of  a  new  solution  has  raised  against  his  immediate  prede¬ 
cessor.  Let  it  suffice  to  consider  briefly  the  latest  of  the  above 
theories,  the  one  by  Wrede. 

Wrede  starts  with  an  argument,  in  which  he  follows  Jostes 
and  which,  at  the  first  glance,  seems  quite  plausible.  It  is 
a  well  known  feature  of  the  language  of  the  Heliand  that 
the  word  burg  is  often  appended  to  names  of  foreign  cities, 

1Zs.  /.  dt.  Alt.  43  (1899),  p.  333-360.  Cf.  Roethe,  “  Heliand  und  Sachsen- 
spiegel,”  in  the  Anzeiger  of  the  same  vol.,  p.  387-390. 

2  See  especially  H.  Hartmann,  Grammaiik  d.  allesten  Mundart  Merseburg's. 
I.  (Dissert.)  Norden,  1890. 


30194 


126 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


so  as  to  form  compounds  like  Nazar ethburg,  Sodomoburgr 
Rumaburg }  Such  names  are  later  on  especially  common  in 
the  eastern  part  of  the  Saxon  territory  (that  is  to  say,, 
in  the  district  in  which  at  present  names  like  Magdeburgr 
Blankeyiburg,  Quedlinburg ,  Merseburg ,  Naumburg  are  found), 
although  similar  names  (e.  g.,  Luneburg ,  Hamburg )  occur 
also  in  Northern  and  sometimes  (e.  g.,  Oldenburg ,  Nienburg , 
Duisburg)  in  Western  Saxony.  These  facts  in  Jostes’s  opinion 
serve  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  regarding  Hamburg  or  it& 
vicinity  as  the  birthplace  of  the  Heliand ,  while  Wrede  con¬ 
tends  that  the  poet  more  probably  lived  in  the  ftitr^-district 
proper  (the  “Gegend  der  Burgwarde”)  near  Merseburg. 

There  is  at  the  outset  a  slight  chronological  difficulty^ 
We  happen  to  know  that  Quedlinburg  was  founded  by 
Henry  the  Fowler,  who  reigned  from  919-936,  and  most 
ot  the  towns  in  -burg  are  perhaps  not  much  older.  In  fact,, 
the  earliest  document  in  which  a  considerable  number  of  such 
names  are  mentioned  is  a  deed  by  the  emperor  Otto  II, 
which  dates  from  May  20,  979  (see  Wrede,  p.  335).  Wrede 
indeed  maintains  that  a  similar  list  of  names  (from  the  abbey 
of  Hersfeld),  written  toward  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  r 
is  a  faithful  copy  of  the  original,  which  belonged  to  the  last 
third  of  the  ninth  century.  I  am  unable  to  examine  the 
latter  statement  and  am  willing  to  accept  it  on  good  faith. 
But  even  this  would  carry  us  only  to  a  time  half  a  century 
later  than  the  date  of  the  Heliand.  Wrede  goes  on  arguing 
that  with  the  aid  of  the  Heliand  we  are  able  to  date  the  East 
Saxon  towns  with  -burg  farther  back:  the  “ Heliandburgen ’r 
constitute  the  earliest  testimony  for  their  existence,  and  judg¬ 
ing  from  the  Heliand  such  names  were  current  [N.  B.  in 
Eastern  Saxony]  a  century  before  the  original  of  the  Hers¬ 
feld  document  was  written.  But  are  we  not  here  entirely 
losing  the  ground  under  our  feet?  If  the  existence  in 
Eastern  Saxony  of  towns  in  - burg  is  warranted  for  the  end 


1  Cf.  Jostes,  1.  c.,  p.  164. 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


127 


■of  the  eighth  century  only  by  names  like  Rumaburg  in  the 
Heliand ,  how  can  we,  without  committing  a  circulus  vitiosus , 
admit  that  only  in  Eastern  Saxony  could  the  poet  have  found 
his  models  for  such  names? 

Moreover,  Wrede  is  apparently  not  aware  of  the  well 
known  fact1  that  in  Old  Frisian  laws  - burch  is  sometimes 
added  to  names  of  cities  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the 
Heliand ,  e.  g.,  Colnaburg  or  Colene  =  Cologne,  as  in  the  He¬ 
liand  Rumaburg  (dat.  Rumuburg )  or  Ruma  =  Rome.2  These 
laws  were  written  not  in  Eastern  Saxony,  but  in  the  Frisian 
country  between  Bremen  and  the  Netherlands. 

With  reference  to  the  Frisian  Colnaburch  Siebs  (/.  c.)  has 
argued  against  Jostes  that  the  names  with  -burg  are  not  of 
much  account  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Heliand.  Judging  from 
Goth,  baurgs  ‘  town/  O.  Norse  borg ,  A.-S.  burg,  etc.,  this 
word  was  in  the  Old  Germanic  dialects  the  general  designa¬ 
tion  for  Residence’  or  ‘town/  In  the  Heliand  it  is  added 
in  rather  loose  composition  to  the  names  of  foreign  cities,  in 
order  to  relieve  somewhat  their  foreign  appearance.  Simi¬ 
larly  the  poet  adds  land  to  the  names  of  foreign  countries 
(e.  g.,  Aegypteo-land,  Galilea-land  or  Galileo-land,  Kananeo- 
land. ,  Ponteo-land),  strom  to  the  names  of  foreign  rivers 
(Jordana-strom  or  J or danes- strom,  Nil-strom),  folic  or  liudi 
to  the  names  of  foreign  peoples  (Ebreo-follc,  Ebreo-liudi , 
Judeo-follc,  Judeo-liudi,  Romano-liudi).  With  reference  to  the 
origin  of  the  poem,  there  is  no  warrant  for  putting  more  stress 
on  names  with  burg ,  than  on  those  with  land  or  strom ,  etc. 

If  further  confirmation  of  this  view  be  required,  it  may  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  also  in  Anglo-Saxon  poetry  the  term 
-burg  is  used,  exactly  as  in  the  Heliand ,  in  coined  words  and 
added  to  foreign  names.  E.  g.,  Finnsburuh  ( Battle  of  Finns - 

1  Cf.  Richthofen,  Altfries.  Worterbuch ,  s.  v.  burch;  Koegel,  Gesch.  d.  dt. 
Lit.,  I,  1,  244;  Siebs,  Ztschr.f.  dt.  Phil.,  29,  413. 

5  Richthofen,  Fries.  Rechtsquellen  (Berlin,  1840),  pp.  3  and  4:  Colnaburch 
het  bi  aide  tidem  Agrippina  (Emsigo  ms.)  =  Colnaburch  hit  bi  alda  tidon 
Agrip  (Riistringer  ms.)  =  Colene  het  bi  aide  tidem  Agripina  (Hunsigo  ms.). 


128 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


burg  38),  Mceringa  burg  (Door’s  Complaint  38),  Romana  burg 
(Boet.  Metr.y  ix,  10),  on  Romebyrig  (Fata  Apost.  11),  Troia 
burg  ( Boet .  Metr.,  ix,  16  and  xxvi,  20),  Sodome  burh  (Gen. 
1975),  on  (or  of)  Sodoma  byrig  (Gen.  1925,  2013,  2558), 
Aethanes  byrig  (plur.,  Exod.  66),  in  Caldea  byrig  (Dan.  95), 
Babilone  burh  (Dan.  601),  Babilon  burga  (plur.,  Dan.  694), 
on  Sione  by  rig  (Psalm  lxxvii,  67). 

It  is  quite  probable  that  the  agreement  of  Frisian,  Anglo- 
Saxon,  and  Old  Saxon  in  this  peculiarity  is  not  incidental, 
but  inherited  from  an  earlier  stage  of  West  Germanic  poetry. 
But  it  certainly  disposes  of  W rede’s  conclusions,  since  we 
cannot  very  well  assume  that,  e.  g.,  the  author  of  the  Battle 
of  Finnsburg  or  Cadmon  lived  near  Merseburg. 

As  regards  Wrede’s  grammatical  arguments,  they  are 
scarcely  more  convincing  than  the  one  based  on  the  use  of 
-burg.  To  be  sure,  his  treatise  is  ingenious  and  brilliant, 
and  contains  much  valuable  information,  derived  especially 
from  the  comprehensive  map  of  German  dialects,  at  which  he 
is  working  in  conjunction  with  Dr.  Wenker.  But  as  to  the 
main  issue  he  has  followed  a  wrong  track,  and  the  result  is 
a  theory  whose  shortcomings  even  his  skilful  treatment  is 
unable  to  disguise. 

Wrede,  e.  g.,  endorses  (p.  342)  Jostes’s  view  as  to  the  form 
fon.  Jostes  wrote  in  the  Zs.  f.  dt.  Alt .,  40,  173:  “  In  my 
opinion  the  one  little  word  von  may  suffice  to  show  (as  against 
the  reasons  advanced  for  Westphalia)  that  the  home  of  the 
poet  must  have  been  in  the  East.”  We  are  assured  by  Wrede 
that  this  view  is  confirmed  by  the  map  of  German  dialects, 
and  that  according  to  the  same  source  and  in  keeping  with 
Wrede’s  theory  von  and  van  are  both  found  to-day  (just  as 
they  are  found  alternating  in  the  Heliand )  in  the  principality 
of  Anhalt  to  the  right  of  the  Saale  and  further  on  beyond 
the  Elbe.  Wrede  also  states  that  van  is  the  North  Frisian 
form,  and  finally  refers  to  Tiimpel’s  Niederd.  Studien ,  p.  11 
seq.  He  does  not  inform  us  that  both  fon  and  fan  occur  in 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


129 


the  Old  Frisian  laws1  and  that  fon  is  the  current  form 
in  Saterland  Frisian.  We  may  reckon  fon  in  the  Heliand 
among  the  Frisian  forms,  or  we  may  assume  with  Holt- 
hausen 2  that  in  Low  German  originally  both  fan  (accented) 
and  fon  (unaccented)  were  found.  The  latter  theory  is 
perhaps  recommended  by  the  fact  that  fon  occurs  in  Middle 
Low  German  too  frequently  to  be  explained  (as  Tiimpel 
proposes)  simply  by  the  influence  of  High  German.  In  any 
case  the  little  word  von  is  not  entitled  in  this  question  to  the 
prominent  place  which  Jostes  and  Wrede  are  willing  to 
bestow  upon  it. 

Wrede  assumes  that  the  Heliand  originated  in  a  part  of 
Germany  in  which  Low  German  is  no  longer  spoken 
to-day.  He  consequently  reconstructs  the  dialect  of  what 
he  regards  as  the  home  of  the  poet,  with  the  aid  of  the 
neighboring  Low  German  and  Midland  German  dialects. 
Since  Frisian,  as  we  have  seen,  was  probably  at  some  time 
also  spoken  in  the  same  vicinity,  the  result  is  a  reconstructed 
dialect  from  which  Wrede  is  able  to  produce  almost  any 
variety  of  dialectic  forms,  whether  commonly  called  Saxon, 
or  Frisian,  or  Franconian.  And  yet,  this  remarkable  dia¬ 
lect — or  rather  combination  of  dialects — does  not  account  for 
some  of  the  most  notable  peculiarities  of  the  Heliand.  Not, 
e.  g.,  for  a  number  of  preterits  in  st,  which  deserve  our 
attention  the  more  since  they  are  not  mentioned  by  either 
Jostes3  or  Wrede. 


lfon  in  the  Rustringer,  Brokmer,  Emsigo,  Fivelgo,  and  Hunsigo  MSS., 
fan  in  the  two  printed  texts  from  Westerlauwer  Friesland.  See  Richthofen, 
Allfries.  Worterb.  s.  v.  fon. 

2Allsdchs.  Elementarbuch,  \  127. 

3  Jostes  (1.  c.,  p.  77)  says :  “  The  number  of  reasons  therefore  which  point 
for  the  origin  of  the  Heliand  toward  the  East  is  quite  considerable,  whereas 
such  as  would  speak  for  the  West  do  not  in  reality  exist”  (“  wahrend  solche, 
die  fur  den  Westen  spreehen ,  in  Wirklichkeit  gar  nicht  vorhanden  sind”).  This 
statement,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  more  correct  if  Jostes  had  reversed 
the  terms  East  and  West. 


130 


HERMANN  COLEITZ. 


The  equivalent  of  Engl.  ‘I  could 9  is  in  the  Heliand  konsta , 
subj.  kunsti  or  konsti.  Similarly  we  have  from  the  verb 
unnan  Ho  grant  ’  the  preterit  onsta ,  and  from  far-munan  Ho 
disdain  *  the  preterit  far-munsta  or  far-monsta.  Such  pre¬ 
terits  occur  only  in  the  Low,  Middle,  and  Rheno-Franconian 
dialects.  They  are  not  used  in  modern  literary  Dutch,  where 
the  preterit  of  ik  lean  is,  in  the  written  language,  ik  konde  or 
ik  kon.  But  their  modern  offshoots1  are  found  in  Belgian 
and  Dutch  dialects,  and  on  the  borderline  between  the  Nether¬ 
lands  and  Germany  south  of  a  line  connecting  Leiden  with 
Uddel  in  the  Veluwe  (near  Utrecht)  and  running  from  there 
to  Muhlheim  on  the  Ruhr.  These  preterits  are  not,  as  is 
sometimes  assumed,  old  forms,  but  are  new  formations, 
shaped  after  the  analogy  of  the  preterit  dorsta  which  belongs 
to  the  old  verb  dorsan  ‘  to  dare.’  The  old  and  genuine  forms 
are  found  in  Goth.  kuri\>a ,  A.-S.  cu\>e ,  MHG.  kunde ;  in  A.-S. 
wfe,  MHG.  g-unde  ;  and  in  Goth,  munda ,  A.-S.  munde2 

Here  then  we  have  in  the  Heliand  an  unmistakable  trace 
of  Franconian  dialect,  and  one  on  which  the  more  stress  is  to 
be  laid  since  these  preterits  are  found  ki  our  mss. — as  far  as 
the  st  is  concerned — without  a  variant.3 

If  the  preterits  in  - st -  are  Franconian  and  cannot  be 
anything  else,  there  is  no  reason  to  abandon  the  derivation 
from  the  Franconian  dialect  of  the  diphthongs  uo  and  ie 
(e.  g.,  in  muodar  mother  =  Sax.  modar ,  or  in  hie  he  =  Sax. 
he)  in  favor  of  the  one  suggested  by  Wrede  (p.  342).  Nor 
can  I  regard  W rede’s  complicated  hypothesis  as  to  mi  and 

1  Viz.,  forms  like  ik  kos  or  kosl  ‘I  could,’  plur.  kossen  or  kosten  (subj.  kos, 

pi.  kosten)  and  ik  begos  ‘  I  began.’ 

3  See  on  the  above  preterits  my  introduction  to  Bauer’s  Dictionary  of  the 
Waldeck  Low  German  dialect  (which  is  to  appear  within  a  few  months  in 
the  series  of  dictionaries  published  by  the  Low  German  Dialect  Society), 
p.  69* 

3  It  happens  that  no  preterit  of  kunnan,  unnan ,  or  munan  occurs  in  the 
Prague  or  Vatican  fragments.  But  since  Cottonianus  and  Monacensis  are, 
as  to  the  st,  in  complete  harmony,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  sHorms 
belong  to  the  original. 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


131 


mile  as  an  improvement  oh  the  simple  explanation  given 
recently  by  Tumpel.1 

Onr  result  then  is  that  the  language  of  th ^Heliand  points 
to  the  Western  part  of  the  Saxon  territory,  or  rather  to  that 
part  of  Germany  where  from  the  earliest  times  we  find  the 
Low  Franconian,  Frisian,  and  Saxon  dialects  in  close  proximity. 
But  the  difficulty  begins  as  soon  as  we  attempt  to  identify 
the  dialect  of  our  poem  with  that  of  a  particular  locality. 
For,  although  the  three  dialects  have  been  neighbors  for 
many  centuries,  there  exists  nowhere  now,  and  as  far  as  we 
can  see  there  has  never  existed,  in  actual  speech,  such  a  com¬ 
bination  of  various  features  from  the  three  dialects  as  is 
found  in  the  Heliand. 

The  difference  between  the  Heliand  and  the  spoken  dialects 
is  seen,  e.  g.,  in  the  pronoun  ‘  other/  which  in  the  Heliand 
form  is  othar.2  This  form  is  identical  with  Old  Frisian  other , 
and  is  characterized  as  Frisian  (or  Anglo-Frisian)  by  the 
change  of  the  original  group  an\  to  oj?.  The  original  sounds, 
short  a  followed  by  a  nasal,  are  preserved  not  only  in  Gothic 
an\ar ,  but  also  in  the  modern  Low  Franconian  and  Low 
Saxon  dialects,  where  we  find  ander  (or  in  some  dialects 
anner  or  arjer).  There  is  no  modern  dialect  to  warrant  the 
opinion  that  the  pronoun  dthar  was  ever  found  in  a  district 
in  which  the  preterit  of  leunnan  is  Iconsta.  The  area  of  these 
forms  is  at  present  separated  by  a  neutral  zone  in  which 
neither  the  st  of  Iconsta  nor  the  long  6  of  dthar  occur.  I  have 

lNiederd.  Sludien,  p.  131. 

8  dthar  is  both  in  C  and  in  M  by  far  the  most  frequent  form.  In  M  it 
occurs,  according  to  Schmeller’s  Glossar .  Saxon.,  91  times.  The  regular 
Low  German  form  andar  (which  however  occurs,  besides  dthar,  also  in  Old 
Frisian)  is  found  only  in  two  instances  ( andran  1263,  ander  1444)  in  C  alone, 
and  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  original.  A  third  form  athar  or  adar,  which 
occurs  twice  in  C  ( athres  1478,  adron  1536),  three  times  in  M  ( adrurn  1271, 
athrana  1434,  adrom  2985),  and  once  in  Gen.  (a'Sur  211),  looks  like  a  combi¬ 
nation  of  the  two  other  forms  and  is  perhaps  merely  a  graphical  variant 
of  dthar. 


132 


HERMANN  COLLlTZ. 


mentioned  before  that  preterits  developed  from  Iconsta  are 
found  south  of  a  line  which  connects  Leiden  with  Utrecht 
and  Muhlheim.  Here  the  pronoun  ‘  other’  is  at  present 
generally  arfr.  „  North  of  this  line  we  have  a  belt  of  dialects 
in  which  the  nth  of  Goth.  an\ar  and  kuri\>a  has  become  nd, 
as  in  Dutch  ander  and  wij  konden.  Finally  we  meet  further 
north  with  the  Frisian  dialects,  in  which  the  n  is  in  both 
forms  lost  before  the  following  spirant,  as  in  English  ‘other’ 
and  ‘  I  could;’  e.  g.,  Modern  West  Fris.  oar  ‘other’  and  ik 
hoe  ‘  I  could.’ 

The  difficulty  cannot  be  solved  by  asserting  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Heliand  there  may  have  existed  between  Frisian 
and  the  present  northern  boundary  line  of  the  preterits  with 
st  a  dialect  which  combined  the  forms  honsta  and  othar.  If 
konsta  had  ever  extended  northward  into  Frisian  territory, 
this  would  have  led  in  Modern  Dutch  to  a  preterit  hos  or 
Icoste  instead  of  kon  or  konde.  Nor  can  othar  have  extended 
southward  beyond  the  boundary  line  of  the  preterits  with  sfy 
because  this  again  would  be  incompatible  with  the  existence 
of  konde  in  Modern  Dutch.  For  the  same  phonetic  law 
which  has  done  away  with  the  nasal  in  the  pronoun  ari\>ar 
would  have  applied  to  the  nasal  in  the  preterit  kon]>a  (Goth. 
kun]>a).  Regularly  then  the  preterit  konde  goes  together  in 
Dutch  with  ander ,  as  in  Middle  High  German  and  Middle 
Low  German  kunde  with  ander ;  and  on  the  other  hand  in 
Modern  Frisian  hoe  (=  Old  Fris.  *kuthe)  with  oar  (—  Old 
Fris.  other),  as  in  A.-S.  cu\e  with  o\ery  and  in  English 
‘  could  ’  with  ‘  other.’ 1 

But  why  not  assume  that  the  mixed  dialect  of  the  Heliand 
is  due  to  various  scribes  or  perhaps  to  a  compromise  between 

xAs  regards  the  former  boundary  between  Franconian,  Saxon,  and  Frisian, 
I  may  refer  to  K.  v.  Richthofen’s  map,  “  Friesland  im  9.  Jahrh.,”  in  his 
Unlersuchungen  zur  friesischen  Rechlsgeschichle ,  Vol.  2  (also  published  sepa¬ 
rately  in  Zivei  Karlen  von  Friesland  im  9.  und  im.  IS.  Jahrh.,  von  K.  v. 
Richthofen.  Berlin,  1882).  Maps  of  the  modern  Dutch  dialects  are  found 
in  Jellinghaus,  Die  niederland.  Volksmundarlen  (Norden,  1892),  and  in 
Paul’s  Grundriss  d.  german.  Philologie,  Vol.  i,  2nd  ed.  (Nr.  4,  Strassb.,  1899). 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


133 


the  dialect  of  the  poet  and  that  of  his  scribe?  We  might 
say,  e.  g.,  that  a  Saxon  poet,  not  versed  in  the  art  of  writing, 
availed  himself  of  the  assistance  of  a  Frisian  scribe,  who 
perhaps  lived  on  Franconian  soil,  or  whose  manuscript  was 
soon  afterwards  copied  by  a  Franconian.  The  chief  objection 
to  this  or  similar  views  is  the  fact  that  a  mixed  dialect, 
closely  resembling  that  of  the  Heliand ,  is  found  in  various 
other  ‘  Old  Saxon ’  writings,  e.  g.,  in  the  fragments  of  a 
Commentary  to  the  Psalms1  and  in  the  Essen  Confession.2 
In  both  the  characteristic  Frisian  other  is  found  ( 5ther[imu] 
Ps.,  dthra  Conf.);  and  in  the  Conf.  there  occurs  the  Franco¬ 
nian  preterit  bigonsta,  while  in  the  Comm,  to  the  Psalms  the 
Saxon  d  (e.  g.,  in  tote)  is  generally  replaced  by  the  Franconian 
diphthong  uo  (e.  g.,  tuote ,  guodlica ,  bluodo ,  fuoti ,  duonne). 
Similar  forms  might  be  quoted  from  other  ‘Old  Saxon ’  texts, 
e.  g.,  from  several  of  the  manuscripts  which  contain  Old 
Saxon  glosses.  It  is  scarcely  probable  that  all  these  different 
texts  should  have  been  written  under  similar  conditions  and 
should  presuppose  the  same  complicated  situation  :  an  author 
unacquainted  with  writing,  and  a  scribe  who  made  it  a  point 
to  write  in  three  different  dialects : — his  own,  that  of  the 
author,  and  a  third  which  was  neither  his  nor  the  author’s. 
Even  if  we  modified  the  theory  so  as  to  limit  the  activity  of 
the  first  scribe  to  two  dialect^  and  make  for  the  third  dialect 
a  set  of  later  scribes  responsible,  as  a  steadily  recurring 
combination  this  would  not  appear  credible;  nor  does  it 
agree  with  what  we  know  of  the  circumstances  in  which  some 
of  these  texts  were  written.3 

There  seems  to  remain  then  only  one  possibility.  We  shall 
have  to  acknowledge  in  the  language  of  the  Heliand  a  mere 
literary  and  artificial  mixture  of  dialects,  similar  to  the  com- 

1  E.  Wadstein,  Kleinere  altsachs.  Sprachdenkmaler  (Norden,  1899),  Nr.  ii. 

*lbid.,  Nr.  hi. 

3E.  g.,  the  Confession  was  written  in  a  Westphalian  convent  (Essen) ;  see 
Wadstein,  1.  c.,  p.  124. 


134 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


bination  of  Low  Franconian  with  Middle  High  German  in 
Veldeke’s  poetry,  or  to  that  of  Aeolic  with  Ionic  and  other 
Greek  dialects  in  the  Homeric  poems.  Such  a  blending  of 
different  dialects  is  in  no  case  merely  arbitrary.  As  a  rule  it  is 
rather  forced  upon  the  poet  by  circumstances,  and  is  generally 
due  to  a  compromise  between  the  dialect  of  the  poet  and  that 
of  his  public,  or  more  frequently  that  of  an  inherited  poetry. 
In  the  latter  case  the  mixture  of  dialects  generally  furnishes  a 
valuable  aid  for  tracing  the  different  stages  through  which 
a  certain  species  of  poetry  has  gone.  In  case,  e.  g.,  of  the 
Homeric  poems  the  mixture  of  Aeolic,  Ionic,  and  other  dia¬ 
lects  indicates  that  epic  poetry  was  first  developed  among  the 
Aeolic  tribes  in  Asia  Minor,  that  from  these  it  passed  to 
the  neighboring  Ionians,  and  afterwards  to  the  Greeks  of  the 
islands  and  of  the  continent. 

It  seems  to  me  that  similar  conclusions  may  be  drawn  from 
the  language  of  the  Heliand .  For  the  Heliand  belongs  only 
to  the  latest  stage  in  the  development  of  Early  Germanic  epic 
poetry.  The  poet  may  have  drawn  on  the  heathen  poetry  of 
his  people  not  only  for  his  metre  and  rhythm,  his  style  and 
his  vocabulary,  but  also  for  his  dialect.  Not  he  then  but 
the  Old  Germanic  heroic  poetry  would  be  responsible  for  the 
admixture  of  Frisian  and  Franconian. 

We  might  claim  that  this  view’  was  possible,  or  probable, 
even  if  there  existed  no  remains  of  an  earlier  poetry  with 
which  to  compare  our  poem.  Yet  we  are  fortunate  to  possess, 
in  the  song  of  Hildebrand  and  Hadubrand,  at  least  one 
fragment  of  German  heroic  poetry  from  the  time  before 
the  introduction  of  Christianity,  and  in  this  fragment  we  meet 
with  a  mixed  dialect  quite  similar  to  that  of  the  Heliand. 

We  need  not  concern  ourselves  here  with  the  controversy 
whether  this  lay  was  originally  composed  in  Lowr  German  or 
in  High  German.  Nobody  will  deny  that  in  its  present 
shape  its  language  forms  a  combination  of  the  two  dialects, 
and  it  suffices  for  our  purpose  that  its  ‘  Low  German  ’  ele¬ 
ments  show  significant  Frisian  (or  Anglo-Frisian)  in  addition 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


135 


to  the  Saxon  forms.  E.  g.,  the  word  for  ‘  other ?  is  in  the 
Hildebrandslied  oder  (1.  12,  ibu  du  ml  enan  sages ,  ik  ml  de 
odre  uuet  ‘if  you  tell  me  one,  I  know  the  others');  Mod.  Germ. 
hund  is  child  (=  O.  Fris.  Jcuth) ;  O.  High  Germ,  gund  ‘  com¬ 
bat  ’  is  gud  or  gift  (=  A.-S.  gift).1  If  the  Hildebrandslied 
is  a  Low  German  poem,  copied  by  a  High  German  scribe,  its 
language  furnishes  immediate  proof  of  the  existence  in  Low 
German  poetry  of  Frisian  forms.  If  it  be  a  High  German 
poem,  transcribed  (with  frequent  traces  of  its  original  dialect) 
into  Low  German,  the  conclusion  would  be  that  the  Frisio- 
Saxon  dialect  in  which  it  was  clothed,  was  that  of  Low 
German  heroic  poetry.2  In  either  case  the  mixture  of 
Frisian  and  Saxon  form  appears  as  a  significant  feature 
of  heathen  poetry  in  Northern  Germany. 

Whether  Low  Franconian  forms  occurred  in  the  Hilde¬ 
brandslied  to  the  same  extent  as  in  the  Heliand  it  is  impossible 
to  decide.  Since  Low  Franconian  resembles  in  its  conso¬ 
nantism  the  Old  Saxon,  in  its  vocalism  the  High  German 
language,  the  Low  Franconian  forms  cannot  as  a  rule,  in  a 
text  like  the  Hildebrandslied ,  be  distinguished  from  those 

1  The  loss  of  n  before  th  is  generally  regarded  as  a  peculiarity  of  Saxon 
as  well  as  of  Anglo-Frisian,  and  in  every  Old  Saxon  grammar  (e.  g.,  Holt- 
hausen’s  recently  published  Allsachs.  Elementarhuch ,  $  191)  words  like  othar , 
soth,  kulh  are  quoted  as  genuine  Saxon.  Yet  in  Middle  Low  German  and 
in  the  Modern  Low  German  dialects  only  the  word  for  ‘south’  (MLG. 
suden )  has  this  syncope,  and  here  it  is  shared  by  Middle  High  German. 
The  phonetic  law,  therefore,  which  does  away  with  n  before  th,  is  not  Saxon 
but  Frisian.  Cf.  Bauer’s  Wald.  Wtb.  (see  above,  p.  130,  note),  p.  70*  seq., 
and  Bremer  in  Paul’s  Grundriss ,  m2,  p.  866. 

2  The  former  alternative  seems  to  me  the  more  probable,  and  I  trust  that 
the  theory  set  forth  here  may  perhaps  serve  to  weaken  some  of  the  objec¬ 
tions  which  have  been  raised  against  Koegel’s  views  (Paul’s  Grundriss,  II, 
1,  p.  175  seq.  of  the  first  edition).  We  may,  e.  g.,  readily  admit  that  the 
vocabulary  of  the  Hildebrandslied  agrees  as  much  with  Anglo-Saxon  as  with 
Old  Saxon  (see  especially  F.  Kauffmann  in  Philolog.  Sludien,  Festgabe  fur 
Sievers ,  p.  127  seq.).  Considering  the  near  relationship  of  Anglo-Saxon 
and  Frisian  this  would  not  militate  against  Old  Saxon  origin,  if  we  assume 
that  Old  Saxon  heroic  poetry  preserved  largely  the  vocabulary  of  its- 
Frisian  models. 


136 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


which  exhibit  a  mixture  of  Low  German  consonantism  and 
High  German  vocalism.  E.  g.,  the  diphthong  uo  in  words 
like  cnuosfes  or  muotti  may  be  regarded  as  Low  Franconian, 
or  it  may  be  in  line  with  the  High  German  ch  in  chud  or  the 
t  in  gihorta  and  many  other  examples.  There  is,  however,  as 
far  as  I  am  aware,  nothing  in  the  Hildebrandslied  to  contra¬ 
dict  the  opinion  that  its  1  Low  German ?  dialect  compares  as 
to  the  Low  Franconian  elements  with  that  of  the  Munich 
manuscript  of  the  Heliand. 

Our  manuscript  of  the  Hildebrandslied  was  probably  written 
between  the  years  809  and  817, 1  while  the  song  itself  is 
probably  at  least  half  a  century  older.  The  Heliand  may 
be  dated,  in  a  round  number,  about  830.  It  follows  then 
that  there  existed  previous  to  the  time  of  the  Heliand  an 
epic  dialect,  characterized  by  the  same  mixture  of  Low  Saxon 
with  Frisian — and,  we  may  add,  probably  Low  Franconian — 
elements.  Thus  the  problem  which  the  mixed  dialect  of  the 
Heliand  offered,  is  shifted  back  to  the  history  of  Early 
Germanic  epic  poetry,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  on  this  ground 
we  are  able  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  solution. 

For  several  centuries  Germanic  heroic  poetry  flourished 
especially  among  the  Franks.  To  the  Franks  is  due,  more 
than  to  other  Germanic  tribes,  the  development  of  the  great 
and  complicated  legend  of  the  Nibelungen,  whose  historical 
elements  incorporate  (in  the  characters,  e.  g.,  of  Dietrich  and 
of  the  Burgundian  kings)  earlier  Gothic  and  Burgundian 
traditions,  while  its  mythical  elements  (viz.  that  part  of  the 
story  which  centres  around  the  characters  of  Brunhild  and 
Siegfried)  seem  to  rest  chiefly  on  Frankish  or  more  particu¬ 
larly  Rhinefrankish 2  legends.  We  are  told  that  Charles  the 

1  These  dates  have  been  ascertained  by  F.  KaufFmann  in  Festgabe  fur 
JSievers,  p.  136  seq. 

2Cf.  Sijmons,  in  Paul’s  Grundriss,  ill*,  p.  656.  KaufFmann  has  recently 
(Zs.  f.  dt.  Phil.  31,  1899,  p.  5)  suggested  that  the  Siegfried  legend  may  have 
been  combined  with  the  story  of  the  Burgundians  as  late  as  in  the  tenth 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


137 


Great  had  the  epic  songs  of  the  Franks  written  down.  But 
the  interest  in  these  songs  seems  not  to  have  been  as  strong 
during  Charles’s  reign  as  formerly;  and  a  century  afterwards, 
at  the  time  of  the  monk  Otfried,  they  were  completely  for¬ 
gotten, — for  Otfried 1  tells  us  that  the  Franks  have  no 
poetry  and  that  their  language  is  not  accustomed  to  the 
restraint  of  metre. 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  main  body  of  Frankish  heroic 
legends  had  found  their  way  to  the  Northern  countries, 
where  they  were  embodied  later  on  in  the  collection  of 
alliterative  songs  which  is  familiar  to  us  under  the  name 
of  the  JEdda.  Opinions  differ  as  to  the  exact  line  on  which 
the  migration  of  these  legends  proceeded.  But  this  much  is 
certain  that  we  have  to  distinguish  in  the  Norse  tradition  at 
least  two  different  layers,  an  earlier  and  a  later  one.  As 
regards  the  latter  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  based  on  Low 
German  sources  and  reflects  the  form  in  which  the  legends 
were  current  in  Northern  Germany  at  the  end  of  the  ninth 
or  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  also  the  earlier  set,  which  seems  to  belong  to 
the  eighth  century,  goes  back — directly  or  indirectly — to  a 
Low  Saxon  source.2 

The  share  which  fell  to  the  Saxons  in  the  cultivation  of 
epic  song,  reminds  us  of  the  part  which  they  played  at  the 
end  of  the  middle  ages  in  the  propagation  of  the  beast  epic. 
The  Low  German  ReinJce  de  Vos ,  destined  to  become  the  most 
popular  form  of  the  beast  epic  and  the  source  of  numerous 
translations,  was  nothing  more  than  a  skilful  translation  of  a 

century.  His  chief  reason  is  that  the  obvious  diversity  in  character  be¬ 
tween  the  two  ought  to  prevent  us  from  dating  their  union  too  far  back. 
But  do  the  two  differ  more  fundamentally  than  the  mythical  and  the 
historical  elements  in  the  Beowulf  epic?  It  seems  to  me  that  stronger 
reasons  would  be  required  to  convince  us  that  a  combination  which  here¬ 
tofore  has  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  Early 
Germanic  epic  poetry,  could  militate  against  an  early  date. 

1  Liber  Evangeliorum,  i,  1,  33-36. 

2  See  for  the  particulars  Sijmons,  l.  c.,  pp.  632  and  663. 


138 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


Flemish  work.  Similarly  most  of  their  heroic  songs  appear 
to  have  been  mere  adaptations  from  those  of  their  western 
neighbors.  For  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  legend  of 
Wieland  the  blacksmith,  which  is  with  some  probability 
claimed  as  Low  German,1  there  is  apparently  not  a  single 
subject  in  the  earlier  heroic  legends  which  could  be  regarded 
as  originally  Saxon.  This  lack  in  originality  is  easily  ex¬ 
plained,  if  we  assume  that  the  Saxons  became  acquainted 
with  the  epic  poetry  of  the  Franks  at  a  comparatively  recent 
date,  when  the  principal  legends  had  obtained  their  definite 
poetic  garb. 

Not  so  their  western  neighbors,  the  Frisians,  in  spite  of 
the  unjust  saying  Frisia  non  cantat — which  we  may  confidently 
change  into  Frisia  cantat ,  or  at  least  Frisia  cantabat — and  in 
spite  of  the  unfortunate  fact  that  not  a  single  alliterative 
poem  has  been  handed  down  in  pure  Frisian  dialect.2 3 

Frisian  heroic  poetry  has  left  its  traces  in  Anglo-Saxon 
epic  songs.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  fragment  of 
the  Battle  of  Finnsburg  and  the  Finn-episode  in  Beowulf  are 
derived  from  a  Frisian  source.  But  we  are  allowed  to  go 
further  and  to  maintain  that  whenever  subjects  from  conti¬ 
nental  epic  poetry  are  met  with  in  Anglo-Saxon  poems,  the 

1Sijmons,  1.  c.,  p.  725.  I  should  like  to  say,  however,  that  even  in  this 
case  the  evidence  of  Saxon  origin  is  far  from  being  conclusive.  It  is  true 
that  in  most  of  the  later  versions  the  scene  is  laid  in  Westphalia.  But 
there  remains  the  possibility  that  the  legend  was  fixed  only  later  on  in  a 
certain  locality,  or  that  the  scene  was  changed  to  Saxony.  In  the  earliest 
version  (Deor’s  Complaint)  there  is  no  indication  of  Saxon  origin,  and  even 
in  the  V0lundarkvitha  the  local  names  are  partly  fictitious.  I  do  not  see 
why  under  these  circumstances  the  legend  should  not  have  originally  been 

Khinefrankish  or  Frisian.  [I  have  not  been  able  to  consult  the  recent 
discussion  of  the  Wieland  legend  by  Jiriczek  in  his  Deutsche  Heldensagen .] 

3  From  alliterative  formulas,  which  occur  frequently  in  the  Old  Frisian 
laws,  Koegel,  Gesch.  d.  dt.  Lit.,  i,  1,  242  seq.,  has  attempted  to  reconstruct 
portions  of  a  Frisian  legal  poetry.  We  need  not  follow  Koegel  in  these 
experiments.  But  we  may  justly  hold  with  Miillenhoff  ( Beovulf ,  p.  105) 
that  the  important  part  which  alliteration  plays  in  the  legal  prose  of  the 
Frisians,  favors  the  view  that  it  had  also  taken  a  firm  hold  of  their  poetry. 
See  on  this  question  especially  Siebs  in  Zs.  f.  dt.  Phil.  29,  p.  405  seq. 


THE  HOME  OF  THE  HELIAND. 


139 


immediate  sources  were  as  a  rule  Frisian  poems.1  Among 
the  texts  which  come  under  this  point  of  view,  belong  espe¬ 
cially  the  fragments  of  Waldere ,  the  account  of  Siegmund’s 
heroic  deeds  in  Beowulf  (1.  875  seq.),  and  Deor’s  Complaint. 

As  regards  the  Waldere  fragments,  I  agree  with  Learned2 
that  they  are  based  on  an  early  ‘  Low  German  ?  version  of 
the  legend.  Learned  is  inclined  to  ascribe  this  version  to  the 
Saxons,  although  he  himself  is  in  doubt  as  to  this  point. 
Waldere  certainly  differs  somewhat  from  the  later  Saxon 
tradition,  which  is  found  in  the  Thidrekssaga  and  which  in 
Mullenhoff’s  opinion 3  goes  back  to  a  Frankish  source. 
Matters  may  perhaps  be  adjusted  if  we  assume  that  Frisian 
poems  formed  the  connecting  link  between  the  continental 
and  the  Anglo-Saxon  version  on  the  one  hand,  and  between 
the  Frankish  and  the  Saxon  form  on  the  other  hand. 

Of  the  passage  on  Siegmund  in  the  Beowulf  and  of  Deor's 
Complaint  we  may  say  that  they  represent  a  peculiar  Anglo- 
Saxon  or  Anglo-Frisian  development  of  legends  which 
apparently  took  an  intermediate  position  between  the  early 
continental  and  the  later  Norse  tradition.  There  is,  therefore, 
at  least  some  probability  that  here,  as  in  the  case  of  Waldere , 
the  source  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  songs  is  to  be  sought  in 
Frisian  tradition. 

The  influence  of  Frisian  heroic  poetry  is  furthermore 
noticeable  in  the  Middle  High  German  popular  epic.  The 
well  known  poem  of  Gudrun,  next  to  the  Nibelungenlied  the 
most  important  popular  epic  in  Middle  High  German,  is 
derived  from  Frisian  heroic  poetry  and  preserves  the  traces 
of  its  origin  in  its  scenery,  its  principal  characters,  and  in 
the  very  name  of  Gudrun.4  For  the  genuine  High  German 
form  of  this  name  is  Gundrun  or  K.undrun)  while  Gudrun 
(=  Guftrun)  points  to  a  dialect  in  which  n  was  lost  before  a 
following  p,  with  compensatory  lengthening  of  the  preceding 

1Cf.  Miillenhoff,  Beovulj ,  pp.  104-108. 

3  Publ.  of  the  Mod.  Lang.  Assoc.,  vii  (1892),  pp.  181-185. 

3Zs.f.  dt.  Alt.  12,  p.  273  seq. 

4See  Miillenhoff,  Zs.  f.  dt.  Alt.  12,  p.  315,  and  Sijmons,  1.  c.,  p.  716. 


140 


HERMANN  COLLITZ. 


vowel,  just  as  in  5]>ar,  gvft-hamun  ( Hildebrandslied ),  and  in 
the  other  examples  discussed  above. 

Finally  it  is  of  interest  in  this  connection  that  the  only 
North  German  rhapsodist  whose  name  has  been  handed  down 
to  us  from  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great  was  a  Frisian. 
His  name  was  Bernlef,  and  he  was  a  friend  of  the  Frisian 
bishop  Liudger  (■)■  809),  the  well  known  founder  of  the 
monastery  of  Werden  on  the  Ruhr.1 

The  above  data,  howrever  few  in  number,  allow  of  the 
interpretation  that  in  heroic  poetry — or  at  least  in  certain 
branches  of  heroic  poetry — the  Frisians  were  the  pupils  of 
the  Franks  and  later  on  became  the  teachers  of  the  Saxons. 
Looked  upon  in  this  light,  the  Frisian  and  Franconian 
forms 2  in  the  Heliand  (as  in  the  Hildebrandslied)  find  their 
natural  explanation  in  the  language  of  Saxon  epic  poetry, 
which  in  its  dialect  preserves  the  traces  of  its  earlier  history. 

We  cannot  in  these  circumstances  draw  from  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  Heliand  any  definite  conclusions  as  to  the 
home  of  the  poet,  just  as  we  cannot  tell  from  the  language 
of  the  Homeric  epic  to  which  of  the  seven  cities  belonged 
the  honor  of  having  produced  a  Homer.  This  much  may  be 
said,  however,  that  more  general  reasons — e.  g.,  the  close 
relation  of  Saxon  to  Frisian  poetry,  and  the  fact  that  most 
of  the  Old  Saxon  literary  productions  come  from  the  Western 
part  of  the  country — point  to  Western  rather  than  to  Eastern 
Saxony. 

Hermann  Collitz. 


1See  on  Bernlef  especially  Mullenhoff,  Beovulf  p.  105,  and  Koegel,  Gesch. 

d.  dt.  Lit.  i,  1,  141  seq.  and  283. 

3 More  exactly:  those  Frisian  and  Franconian  forms  which  belonged  to 
the  original  text  of  the  poem  and  are  accordingly  found  in  most  of  our 
mss.  The  preponderance  of  Franconian  forms  in  V  calls  for  a  different 
explanation.  If  we  may  assume  with  Mullenhoff  ( Denkm .,  l3,  p.  xxvii 
seq. ;  cf.  Koegel,  Gesch.  d.  dt.  Lit.,  i,  2,  p.  558  seq.)  that  Kheno-Franeonian 
was  spoken  at  the  Carlovingian  court,  it  seems  possible  to  suggest  that 
perhaps  a  copy  of  the  poem  was  rewritten  in  Franconian  dialect  (without, 
however,  effacing  every  trace  of  Saxon  and  Frisian)  for  the  emperor  Ludwig 
the  Pious,  and  that  from  this  manuscript  the  Vatican  fragments  were  copied. 


